This is why obama must act against syria

[rhodescholar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/opinion/a-syrians-cry-for-help.html?_r=0

"The primary perpetrator of violence is the government of Bashar al-Assad, which controls public resources, the media, the army and the intelligence services. The civilians who rose up against that regime, first peacefully and then through armed resistance, constitute a broad spectrum of Syrian society.

When a government murders its own citizens and they resist, this can hardly be called a civil war. It is a barbaric campaign of the first degree."

=======================

My greatest hope is that syria is attacked and assad killed, and then on to iran...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Alleged. No proof Assad used chemical weapons. Thanks for playing!

 

[tinydancer]

It can't be called a civil war. It can't be called an uprising.

Not when two foreign countries are paying people to remove Assad over a pipeline.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most rightwingers on this board would have loved to have gone to war against Syria, had Obama not been the president they'd have had to support had he done so.

That is the ONLY reason you are seeing all these born-again rightwing peaceniks on this board,

not counting the usual handful of Paulbot types.

 

[oreo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/opinion/a-syrians-cry-for-help.html?_r=0

"The primary perpetrator of violence is the government of Bashar al-Assad, which controls public resources, the media, the army and the intelligence services. The civilians who rose up against that regime, first peacefully and then through armed resistance, constitute a broad spectrum of Syrian society.

When a government murders its own citizens and they resist, this can hardly be called a civil war. It is a barbaric campaign of the first degree."

=======================

My greatest hope is that syria is attacked and assad killed, and then on to iran...

You might want to consider that Assad is also murdering a lot of would-be terrorists? The main reason Obama does NOT want to replace Assad--is because Syria is full of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations--who are fighting for control.

And we've witnessed what happens during a power vacuum in the middle east. Extremists take over.

They need to fight their own civil war--just like we did in the 1860's--and without any intervention from us.

 

[oreo]

Most rightwingers on this board would have loved to have gone to war against Syria, had Obama not been the president they'd have had to support had he done so.

That is the ONLY reason you are seeing all these born-again rightwing peaceniks on this board,

not counting the usual handful of Paulbot types.

I see you're wearing your partisan goggles. The main man who has continually called for a strike is YOUR guy Obama--and there is massive bi-partisan opposition to this coming from the right--the left and the middle. And a 61% against a strike--within the American public says so.

 

[deltex1]

Obabble missed his chance when he didn't up the ante on Putin...demand an immediate cease fire and immediate insertion of inspectors. Obabble is the consummate dope.

 

[whitehall]

Funny how the Times avoids using words like "jihad" or "Alqueda" so they refer to the rebels as a "broad spectrum". Our own administration can't seem to get the story straight. Kerry is calling for something he claims will be a "small strike" and the president can't seem to act unless he calls Putin for advice. What happens when we put the "broad spectrum" in charge? Barry Hussein will be eating pizza while another American ambassador is murdered in Syria?

 

[tinydancer]

Most rightwingers on this board would have loved to have gone to war against Syria, had Obama not been the president they'd have had to support had he done so.

That is the ONLY reason you are seeing all these born-again rightwing peaceniks on this board,

not counting the usual handful of Paulbot types.

How can anyone back removing Assad from office when that just gives the country over to radical Islamists including Al Qaeda?

Obama's interference in the ME has just been a fiasco. That's why no country was willing to form a coalition with him, with the exception of France and even there 65% of the people polled were against Hollande working with Obama.

 

[Katzndogz]

The obama backed al quaeda rebels are the ones killing civilians and used chemical weapons.

 

[tinydancer]

Obabble missed his chance when he didn't up the ante on Putin...demand an immediate cease fire and immediate insertion of inspectors. Obabble is the consummate dope.

Well the first red flag in this situation that this attack was by the terrorists errrrrr rebels was that the UN Inspectors had been invited in by Assad to clear his name when this "coincidental chemical weapon attack" happens just as they are arriving.

They were on the ground in Syria.

 

[deltex1]

Obabble missed his chance when he didn't up the ante on Putin...demand an immediate cease fire and immediate insertion of inspectors. Obabble is the consummate dope.

What was the first thing Putin did after announcing support of Obabbles brilliant idea??? He upped the ante by demanding the US pledge not to bomb. Putin is making Obabble look the fool.

 

[deltex1]

Now Russia is threatening to up their arms sales to Iran...Obabble is asleep at the wheel.

 

[LoneLaugher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/opinion/a-syrians-cry-for-help.html?_r=0

"The primary perpetrator of violence is the government of Bashar al-Assad, which controls public resources, the media, the army and the intelligence services. The civilians who rose up against that regime, first peacefully and then through armed resistance, constitute a broad spectrum of Syrian society.

When a government murders its own citizens and they resist, this can hardly be called a civil war. It is a barbaric campaign of the first degree."

=======================

My greatest hope is that syria is attacked and assad killed, and then on to iran...

You might want to consider that Assad is also murdering a lot of would-be terrorists? The main reason Obama does NOT want to replace Assad--is because Syria is full of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations--who are fighting for control.

And we've witnessed what happens during a power vacuum in the middle east. Extremists take over.

They need to fight their own civil war--just like we did in the 1860's--and without any intervention from us.

You have GOT to be kidding. You cannot be that unaware.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now Russia is threatening to up their arms sales to Iran...Obabble is asleep at the wheel.

So now you've flipped back over to supporting military action now that it appears Obama is no longer moving in that direction?

lol, you people are the perfect parodies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most rightwingers on this board would have loved to have gone to war against Syria, had Obama not been the president they'd have had to support had he done so.

That is the ONLY reason you are seeing all these born-again rightwing peaceniks on this board,

not counting the usual handful of Paulbot types.

I see you're wearing your partisan goggles. The main man who has continually called for a strike is YOUR guy Obama--and there is massive bi-partisan opposition to this coming from the right--the left and the middle. And a 61% against a strike--within the American public says so.

The Left is opposing this on principle, even though it means opposing the president.

The Right has flip flopped from their former interventionist selves to oppose this BECAUSE, and only because, Obama is president.

 

[Sarah G]

How are you fools going to get chemical weapons away from Assad when you can't even get a gun away from George Zimmerman..

- Arsenio Hall

 

[tinydancer]

Now Russia is threatening to up their arms sales to Iran...Obabble is asleep at the wheel.

So now you've flipped back over to supporting military action now that it appears Obama is no longer moving in that direction?

lol, you people are the perfect parodies.

Russia is only threatening to up arms sales if Obama strikes Syria.

 

[kaz]

Most rightwingers on this board would have loved to have gone to war against Syria, had Obama not been the president they'd have had to support had he done so.

So you see changing positions on wars based on the party in the White House as being a ... Republican ... issue.

Slept through the two thousand naughts, didn't you, sweetie?

 

[deltex1]

Now Russia is threatening to up their arms sales to Iran...Obabble is asleep at the wheel.

So now you've flipped back over to supporting military action now that it appears Obama is no longer moving in that direction?

lol, you people are the perfect parodies.

Check your jockstrap, Gertrude. What I did not support was an incredibly small strike that would achieve nothing. What I supported was, if Assad is our enemy, kill him..it gets no simpler than that.